The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Britain's Advertising Standards Authority gave its ruling Wednesday on three complaints that advertising by Electronic Arts for BioWare's Mass Effect 3 was false or misleading. Specifically, the case rested on the statements "the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome" and "your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios".

Mass Effect 3 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The forces arrayed on this one probably don't need to look at the judgment to decide whether it is right or wrong, but the phrasing of BioWare's defence is interesting. Mild spoilers to follow:

[Electronic Arts] said the final decision a player made in the game would have a drastic impact on the implied end state of the player's story, and that the endings came in the form of three possible choices, the availability and outcome of which were determined by the player's EMS (effective military strength, a value gained by recruiting allies and by playing multiplayer and mobile EA games) score. An optimal play through would result in all three choices being available but players may have only two options or no choice at all, depending on their previous actions.

They said the effectiveness of the choice made was also dependent on the EMS score, for example whether the main character "Shepard" would survive and whether the Earth was destroyed. They said there were also a large number of other, more minor, variations. In particular, they explained how the outcome of the Geth/Quarian Campaign and the Genophage Campaign would impact on the cinematic experience at the end of the game, and the implied end state of the player's story.

They said that characters who had died during previous games in the series, as a result of player actions, would not be present in ME3, and that other actions in previous games could also lead to the death of supporting characters in the game.

That is, EA's defence was that the endings were ipso facto radically different - even if they reused or recolored art assets - because the status of the hero and the planet Earth can change significantly - in narrative terms - due to the choices made, and the ability to make those choices depends on the player's effective military strength, which varies according to the actions taking within the game and even outside the game. That is, to say that the endings are identical because they use similar assets is like saying that two endings of a Choose Your Own Adventure book, in one of which you die and in the other of which you live, are identical because they are both printed in ink on paper. It's an interesting angle.

They are also drawing a distinction which I think is important, and has led to a lot of miscommunication and bad feeling, between the ending meaning the last map (and thus the last 20 minutes or so of game time) and the ending meaning the last act, which runs from the moment the character begins an uninterrupted progress towards the credits by arriving to relieve the besieged planet Earth. That is, the ending begins for BioWare at the point where all the alliances and resources Shepard has thus far gathered, and the friends Shepard has saved, recruited or lost, arrive at their narrative destination and start to pay off in dialog options, cutscenes and in-game moments (whether one race or another is rallying at a particular point, whether a particular friend is available to speak to and so on).

The ASA ultimately agreed, declining to uphold claims of misleading advertising and exaggeration:

The ASA acknowledged the complainants' belief that players' choices in the game did not influence the outcome to the extent claimed by EA. However, we considered that the three choices at the end of the game were thematically quite different, and that the availability and effectiveness of those choices would be directly determined by a player's EMS score, which was calculated with reference to previous performance in the game(s). We also acknowledged that there appeared to be a large number of minor variations in the end stages of ME3, and that those were directly impacted by choices made by players earlier in the game(s). Whilst we acknowledged that the advertiser had placed particular emphasis on the role that player choices would play in determining the outcome of the game, we considered that most consumers would realise there would be a finite number of possible outcomes within the game and, because we considered that the advertiser had shown that players' previous choices and performance would impact on the ending of the game, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

Curiously, this almost exactly mirrors the informal opinion of the US Better Business Bureau, who nonetheless found that the advertisement was technically misleading, since the decisions made by the player did not completely shape the conclusion of the game - the conclusion was shaped towards a finite number of options and elements dictated by the code and assets of the game:

The issue at stake here is, did BioWare falsely advertise? Technically, yes, they did. In the first bullet point, where it states “the decisions you make completely shape your experience”, there is no indecision in that statement. It is an absolute. The next statement is not so absolute. It states “your choices drive powerful outcomes”. A consumer would have to very carefully analyze this statement to come to a conclusion that the game’s outcome is not “wholly” determined by one’s choices.

In neither case does this set a hopeful precedent for the case apparently presented to the FTC by BioWare Social Network user El_Spiko - although the BBB's technicality might be satisfying on the level of Internet forum argument, if the FTC were to remove that level of cover from advertising claims, it would never get anything done, since it would need to adjudicate endlessly on whether a product described as "amazing" actually had the power to amaze, or merely to surprise or mildly startle. Compared to which horror the devastation of the Turian home planet Palaven would, frankly, be a picnic.

Ultimately, the court that matters is the court of public opinion - the ASA is not going to be bulk-buying the next BioWare game, nor the FTC. The issue here is not one for the legal team, ultimately, but for the PR department, and ultimately for the creatives. BioWare has announced the Summer release of free DLC to expand on elements of the ending - although it is not apparently planning to go for the narrative Hail Mary of the last map having been a hallucination or dream. Without a total disavowal, no amount of free DLC will be enough for some, but most are waiting to see if their complaints and comments will be addressed.

Disclosure: The author just wants Garrus to be OK, and happy, and maybe running a bar. In fact, the author demands a minigame featuring Garrus as a harried bar owner. Move the line! Hold the fries! I'll have reach in my wide selection of beers, she'll have flexibility in her choice of bar snacks or meals! This stuff writes itself....

Mass Effect 3: The Extended Cut DLC will be available in Summer 2012, free to all holders of an online pass for Mass Effect 3.